Young to pay higher taxes to fund women who retired early

I think these people just missed the general change to retirement age that shifted it from 60 to 65 for women what ever form of conventional pension some one happened to be in. The state one followed the same change. How does it work now

There are some changes to the State Pension age at the moment. For people reaching State Pension age now, it will be age 66 for women and men.
For those born after 5 April 1960, there will be a phased increase in State Pension age to 67, and eventually 68.

The same seems to apply to state jobs with a pension included.

One of the women interviewed about this change said why didn't they taper the change in some way similar to the above. Fact is they didn't even though a current lady Tory MP reckons she questioned the change. So a group of people had plans to retire at 60 and suddenly found they couldn't. Fact is lots in various pensions found they couldn't as well.

All goes back to the hope of reducing a man's retirement age from 65 to 60. One of the odd factors is this was already possible for some in conventional schemes. Even encouraged.
 
ajohn said:
One of the women interviewed about this change said why didn't they taper the change in some way similar to the above.
Click to expand...

They did taper it a bit. It was raised from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2018.
 
There are two different issues.

1) Is Parliament empowered to determine retirement ages and pension entitlements?

Answer: Yes

2) Did the government of the day provide proper notice to all the people whose pension entitlement was changed?

Answer: No

This does not mean they must receive larger pensions under the old scheme

But it does mean that they may receive some compensation if there was not correct notification.
 
gas112 said:
plenty of notice .
Click to expand...

Paragraphs 49 and onwards are also relevant

www.ombudsman.org.uk

What should have happened – the relevant standards | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

What should have happened – the relevant standards 40. The overarching standard we have applied when considering these complaints is the requirement for good administrative behaviour. As noted above, the Principles of Good Administration codified pre-existing good administrative practices. The...
www.ombudsman.org.uk www.ombudsman.org.uk


And so are the findings in paragraph 125 and onwards.

www.ombudsman.org.uk

Our findings | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

Our findings 125. It is not our role to substitute DWP’s decisions about how changes to State Pension age should have been communicated with our own, and we recognise the discretion available to DWP in these matters. When considering whether there was maladministration, we look at whether...
www.ombudsman.org.uk www.ombudsman.org.uk

Paragraphs 155 and 156 are particularly relevant.


So the ombudsman has addressed

2) Did the government of the day provide proper notice to all the people whose pension entitlement was changed?
 
I expect some of our older members were sent a pension forecast and told that they would qualify for a full pension after 30 years of NI contributions. I was. I later got another forecast and found out it had been increased to 35 years. NI contributions information from my first few years appears to have been lost. Since by then I had 39 working years on my record, this was of no concern to me. I had no need to make additional contributions for missing years. It might have caused a problem to people who made their plans when they were told 30, or who did not apply for forecasts.

I got a forecast shortly before taking my pension, but when it arrived, it had been recalculated under different rules.

The deduction amount for contracted-out years has never been clearly explained. I thought I knew what had happened to me, but a few weeks ago I heard that other 'notters were told something different. I have given up trying to understand it.
 
JohnD said:
The deduction amount for contracted-out years has never been clearly explained. I thought I knew what had happened to me, but a few weeks ago I heard that other 'notters were told something different. I have given up trying to understand it.
Click to expand...

True.

Further, I get a full state pension, as does a friend the same age as me within a couple of years. We get different amounts. Neither of us can explain the difference.

--
For the women, was there sufficient announcement of the changes?
Yes for those switched on,
No for those switched off.

HMG has a duty to all - including the dopey.

Back to the AIDS-shock posters which didn't happen for pensions:
"If you are a woman born between 19xx and 19xx, the pension rules have changed.
You may become destitute and you have to allow for that".
Such a range of posters would have been painful for the gov of the day but were necessary and would have saved a lot of pain for all, now.
Yes it was a Labour government but that's not material. The adjustment to the pension age wasn't widely contested.
I think the issue would have been better dealt with if the governments of the day hadn't been overwhelmingly
a) male
b) upper class.

So how do we deal with it?
We can't have a form with:

Are you dopey? [Tick here to get money.]

The Means-tested Benefit System would appear to be able to cope with this.
The poverty of the people now affected, probably correlates with their mental and practical ability to have done something positive about the pension age change earlier. So only the poor and/or dopey would get it.

Those who made allowances would want to know:
"Why should she get £xxx, she didn't pay up for a better pension whereas I did".
A fair question which respects the way we normally do things. But part of the answer is that you must have been in a better position than she was. Lucky you. Life ain't fair.

As long as £xxx is less that those who paid for full benefits, it's an arguably defensible solution which is already applied by default across the board.

I can exemplify - I get a payment for impaired "independence".
(PIP, is not means tested, and at full rates (depending on impairment level) is to be £172.75 per week, tax free)
I knew about it before I reached retirement age, so I went through the process then, and still get mine.
After reaching retirement age, it is not possible to start a claim for PIP or get an equivalent so you cannot get it, but there is the catchall pension supplement (means tested, not sure if it looks at PIP or not).

Nobody is gathering around parliament in their wheelchairs arguing that they didn't know about PIP before they retired, and it was the government's responsibility to have told them.

So for the women, in my view, yes, add some (lesser because they never paid in) allowance to the Benefit Scheme, age dependent, and means tested. Gov will have to back-date it too, so the women may have to prove their income a few years ago . Ugh.
That will be slow, so like the Blood scheme, Benefits should be paid to dependants, to prevent government simply delaying/waiting for death. Do you means-test that? ? Ugh ugh.


-
Since I re-raised it, PIP £172.5 per week free of tax could be worth about £15k as an annual taxed income.
I don't get the full rate but even so, should I get it? I'm entitled, so yes. I don't need it, so no.

I could sit here and list all sorts of benefits (small b) which are/were available to the slightly more switched on, better off people. Better off here just meaning able to take a bit more risk with some of their money and watch it double. Pretty darned difficult to do away with that benefit unless you completely disincentivise people from earning, which would be disastrous.

Ain't life a bitch?
 
Last edited:
Justin Passing said:
HMG has a duty to all - including the dopey.
Click to expand...
That may or may not be true but it was an independent investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that found there were mistakes made. There was contradictory advice on the DWP website even up until 2016, which made it too late for some to realistically do anything about it.

Some were very clued up, yes, some not so much, but the report shows where mistakes by the DWP were made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top